Jump to content
soxfan49

Offseason Targets

Recommended Posts

I'd give up Nick Madrigal and Dane Dunning in a heartbeat for Darvish. 3/59 is a bargain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Flash said:

Of course we would take on his salary. Its quite reasonable. My sense is Cubs will want to package him with a less reasonable salary like Kimbrel, in which case we might insist on cash back. I could see Darvish and Kimbrel plus cash for Cease and fillers. 

For someone who uses Baseballtradevalues all the time to stress test trade proposals, I’d recommend running this one through.  No team is giving up a former top 20 prospect Darvish plus taking on a bad salary, especially not in this environment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, fathom said:

Nope...a team like the Angels could offer a much better prospect like Marsh.  Cubs have no use at all for Madrigal.  Mets and Twins would also be interested in Yu, IMO.

All these teams could be interested in Darvish, the question is which ones are willing to give up a top 50 prospect to acquire him and then pay him $59M for his 34 to 36 age seasons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said:

All these teams could be interested in Darvish, the question is which ones are willing to give up a top 50 prospect to acquire him and then pay him $59M for his 34 to 36 age seasons.

Angels absolutely are desperate enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

For someone who uses Baseballtradevalues all the time to stress test trade proposals, I’d recommend running this one through.  No team is giving up a former top 20 prospect Darvish plus taking on a bad salary, especially not in this environment.

I don't think it's a bad salary though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I don't think it's a bad salary though. 

Kimbrel’s salary?  My post probably wasn’t clear, but that’s what I was referring to.  If Darvish is anywhere close to his 2020 form, his contract is a steal no doubt, just depends on how he ages.  If the price gets too high, I’d assume teams would simply go after someone like Marquez who is both young, cheap & controllable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Sox took on Darvish and Heyward at once they should get a top young piece, and on the other side should be just "names."

E.g.

Darvish + Heyward + Marquez for Collins + Lopez + Engel + Marshall

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I don't think it's a bad salary though. 

Yeah if Smyly is worth 11 million a year, Yu is a bargain at 3/59.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fathom said:

Yeah if Smyly is worth 11 million a year, Yu is a bargain at 3/59.

Kimbrel’s salary is what I was referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is kind of funny that a year ago - Darvish contract was more of an albatross and not moveable (definitely 2 years ago) and now we are all saying it is a steal. It is still a LT deal for an aging pitcher, but it seems the type of move that makes sense given White Sox philosphies. If he pitches anywhere like last year, awesome deal, but as long as he's healthy he should be pretty solid and help in that department and likely you aren't giving up any or your stud pitching prospects (which I think is key - because guys are going to be hurt and if Sox are going to win a series they are going to need to find some internal, home grown aces or have those prospects to leverage for future moves). 

In general - I like the view of Darvish - although I wish you could get him in a deal without dangling Madrigal, but to be honest, of all the Sox more marketable guys, he's the first one I'm dealing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, YourWhatHurts said:

If the Sox took on Darvish and Heyward at once they should get a top young piece, and on the other side should be just "names."

E.g.

Darvish + Heyward + Marquez for Collins + Lopez + Engel + Marshall

^Whoever posted the laughing face smiley to this is a loser.  I'm really sick of seeing this crap here.  If you disagree, make a comment as to why.  Remember that this is a discussion board.

The Cubs are likely going to nontender Kris Bryant, the former face of their franchise, because they don't want to risk having to pay him like 4 or 5 million more than he's worth.  Meanwhile 1.5 years ago Darvish was a bad contract who refused to opt out and test the market because he knew he couldn't get anything near what the Cubs owed him.  And Heyward has been a bad deal since Year 1.  

There's a "quote" button if you have something to disagree with.  The laughing smiley icon is just lazy.  

Whoever did that, fuck you.  Not only are you stupid but you're lazy.  Also that's not a personal attack because the person who did it is anonymous.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 15
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said:

It is kind of funny that a year ago - Darvish contract was more of an albatross and not moveable (definitely 2 years ago) and now we are all saying it is a steal. It is still a LT deal for an aging pitcher, but it seems the type of move that makes sense given White Sox philosphies. If he pitches anywhere like last year, awesome deal, but as long as he's healthy he should be pretty solid and help in that department and likely you aren't giving up any or your stud pitching prospects (which I think is key - because guys are going to be hurt and if Sox are going to win a series they are going to need to find some internal, home grown aces or have those prospects to leverage for future moves). 

In general - I like the view of Darvish - although I wish you could get him in a deal without dangling Madrigal, but to be honest, of all the Sox more marketable guys, he's the first one I'm dealing.  

I do not think that contract is a steal.  When was the last time he put a full season together.  I thought 2020 and second half of 2019 were good but I think there is still enough risk there of injury and age.

I think Madrigal is too much to give up based on Yu's age and injury history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, maloney.adam said:

 

If we trade Madrigal to the Cubs he will be haunting us for a dozen years.  No Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, poppysox said:

If we trade Madrigal to the Cubs he will be haunting us for a dozen years.  No Thanks!

He’s going to be a force when he hits puberty

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

For someone who uses Baseballtradevalues all the time to stress test trade proposals, I’d recommend running this one through.  No team is giving up a former top 20 prospect Darvish plus taking on a bad salary, especially not in this environment.

Not sure I take your point. Are you saying Cease and fillers would be too much for Darvish and Kimbrel...assuming Cubs kick in cash? Are you referring to Cease as the former top 20 prospect? If that is what you are saying (I think there is a word missing), I completely disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

I do not think that contract is a steal.  When was the last time he put a full season together.  I thought 2020 and second half of 2019 were good but I think there is still enough risk there of injury and age.

I think Madrigal is too much to give up based on Yu's age and injury history. 

I tend to agree with you; given the various extremes, I presume the Cubs will have a harder time getting a premium prospect given the contract. We shall see though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate that so many posters want to trade Madrigal. Fangraphs talks about 2b being one of the worst positions for talent in MLB right now. We have a guy that looks like he could be a 4 WAR per year guy and we want to get rid of him to take on an enormous salary?  It seems to me the thing the White Sox have lots of depth in is young exciting pitchers.   If you set the cut off at 26 years...we have Giolito, Cease, Kopeck, Dunning, Lopez, Crochett, Stiever, Kelly, Thompson, Dahlquist, Lambert and Pinklington.  I count a dozen really exciting young pitchers.  All are either on our current roster or top 30 prospects and all starter potentials (lots of good young relief arms too).  Why would the Cubs not want to trade Darvish and his salary for three guys like Stiever, Kelly and Lambert?   Sort of like the package we sent got for Eaton...though Eaton was cost controlled position player.  I should think you can package three of these arms to a lot of teams that want to dump salary and rebuild for the future. For the Sox...you get one sure thing for three future things.   

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flash said:

Not sure I take your point. Are you saying Cease and fillers would be too much for Darvish and Kimbrel...assuming Cubs kick in cash? Are you referring to Cease as the former top 20 prospect? If that is what you are saying (I think there is a word missing), I completely disagree.

Sorry, Cease peaked at 25th overall on Pipeline’s rankings.  But yeah, I’d be hesitant to give up him up for Darvish and definitely wouldn’t do it if Kimbrel’s contract was involved.  That being said, I’m still very high on Cease unlike many on here.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

Sorry, Cease peaked at 25th overall on Pipeline’s rankings.  But yeah, I’d be hesitant to give up him up for Darvish and definitely wouldn’t do it if Kimbrel’s contract was involved.  That being said, I’m still very high on Cease unlike many on here.

Would much, much rather trade Madrigal than Cease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHY TRADE OUR GOOD YOUNG FUTURE CORE PLAYERS WHEN WE CAN EASILY SIGN THE PLAYERS THAT WE NEED?
 

IT STILL MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, michelangelosmonkey said:

I hate that so many posters want to trade Madrigal. Fangraphs talks about 2b being one of the worst positions for talent in MLB right now. We have a guy that looks like he could be a 4 WAR per year guy and we want to get rid of him to take on an enormous salary?  It seems to me the thing the White Sox have lots of depth in is young exciting pitchers.   If you set the cut off at 26 years...we have Giolito, Cease, Kopeck, Dunning, Lopez, Crochett, Stiever, Kelly, Thompson, Dahlquist, Lambert and Pinklington.  I count a dozen really exciting young pitchers.  All are either on our current roster or top 30 prospects and all starter potentials (lots of good young relief arms too).  Why would the Cubs not want to trade Darvish and his salary for three guys like Stiever, Kelly and Lambert?   Sort of like the package we sent got for Eaton...though Eaton was cost controlled position player.  I should think you can package three of these arms to a lot of teams that want to dump salary and rebuild for the future. For the Sox...you get one sure thing for three future things.   

Can't see Cubs being interested in Madrigal. Plus, he's coming off of shoulder surgery.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ChiSox59 said:

WHY TRADE OUR GOOD YOUNG FUTURE CORE PLAYERS WHEN WE CAN EASILY SIGN THE PLAYERS THAT WE NEED?
 

IT STILL MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

Because there’s only one difference making pitcher you can pay for and he’s going to make almost double what Yu will with way more years as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, poppysox said:

If we trade Madrigal to the Cubs he will be haunting us for a dozen years.  No Thanks!

 

090E4F20-5696-49B7-AA7A-D326D185F906.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×